IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!

Rating 5 V
 
rob balsamo
post Mar 12 2010, 01:38 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The long awaited release from Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyzing the events which took place in New York City on the morning of the 11th of September 2001. Analysis includes Black Box Recovery, Radar and Speed data analysis, Aircraft Control, and "Hijacker" Pilot Skill. Interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines.




This is the full film but keep in mind this online preview is compressed to almost 1/3rd of original quality in order to fit on the Vimeo site. To order the high quality version, please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store.

9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK - Director's Cut also now available. Includes the FULL interviews with 757/767 Capts from United and American Airlines. Click here to order your copy today.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtca_dc


Thank you for your support!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Mar 12 2010, 03:43 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Looking forward to watching it.

Congrats and thanks for all you've done.

DYEW
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Westgate
post Mar 16 2010, 06:20 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 11-March 07
From: Cambridge UK
Member No.: 752



DVD arrived safely today - thanks Rob. Thanks also for the download link, sent immediately after I ordered the DVD.

A superb analysis, as per usual. It repays more than one viewing - especially to friends who are confirmed sceptics.

I remember Mike Ruppert writing that the Perps have got away with it - and will continue to get away with it. But, because of the ever growing truth movement, professionals like yourselves especially, that I firmly believe that one day it will prove impossible for any government to deny what really happened that day.



Lest we forget
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RLW
post Mar 16 2010, 09:34 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 17-June 07
From: Texas
Member No.: 1,171



If I understand the video correctly (and I may very well not), one of the aircraft, based on the Rades data, was going supersonic .

If that is the case, my question is wouldn't flying at supersonic speeds have caused sonic boom? Also, were there any witnesses that reported a sonic boom?

This post has been edited by RLW: Mar 16 2010, 09:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 16 2010, 10:06 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (RLW @ Mar 16 2010, 10:34 PM) *
If I understand the video correctly (and I may very well not), one of the aircraft, based on the Rades data, was going supersonic .


Hi RLW,

Thanks for asking this question as the information can be overwhelming and highly technical for some.

In a word, No. The aircraft was not going supersonic at or near sea level.

It is important to understand the definition of Equivalent Airspeed and Mach. Equivalent Airspeed is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a given airspeed at higher altitude in thinner air. The airspeed at sea level based on the NTSB Data produces the same dynamic pressure on the airframe as a supersonic airspeed at higher altitude. This is what we demonstrated and calculated in the above film and the reason we added the intro disclaimer letting the viewer know it might be beneficial to view the presentation more than once.

Also, our supplemental press release may help understanding the analysis as well.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
confused
post Mar 16 2010, 11:47 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 4
Joined: 2-April 08
Member No.: 3,081



Can one determine how fast the planes were going by watching the videos of the WTC attacks?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 17 2010, 12:18 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (confused @ Mar 17 2010, 12:47 AM) *
Can one determine how fast the planes were going by watching the videos of the WTC attacks?


I think it has been tried, but no one knows if the footage they are analyzing is exact speed. Radar of course is much more reliable, if the data isnt fabricated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Branjo
post Mar 17 2010, 02:34 AM
Post #8





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 4,695



I just watched the new video and I think you guys have outdone yourselves yet again.
I will be sharing this knowledge with everyone I know and I hope that we can keep the pressure up to
force an investigation based on valid information within this video.

You do your profession and your country a great service by continuing your quest for justice.
Thank you for making this video.

Branjo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 17 2010, 06:37 AM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Correct me if I am wrong please.

All the data received by the ATC control system aside from radar returns is broadcast via radio.

Radar returns can likewise be broadcast such as RACONS which in marine navigation send a blip out supposedly when they received in a radar signal, so radar also is a radio signal.

Further, at some point in a radar receiver the radio signals are converted into line voltage which appears as data on dispay screens and is recorded on drives or tapes or some medium.

If the above is basically true (I am not a EE)... then is it not possible to insert data into the system at various points?

Would it not be possible to simulate an actual plane by simply transmitting data from a "radio transceiver" which was pre programmed from a flight simulator?

And or couldn't this data be inserted via some back door into the ATC system. I can't imagine there are not "ports" to insert data for "alignment" and turning of the equipment.

Therefore if any of the above (or all) is basically factual, then it would be possible to create any "environment" of ATC "screens".

Further, even conversations with the cockpit could be likewise staged and there would be no way of know where the transmissions were coming from. The ATC might think he (or she) was speaking with a cockpit and they were conversing with a radio shack down the street in some undisclosed location.

Further, any black box which may be recovered may likewise be a substitute place in whatever aircraft crashed... with data created in a simulator. If each Box has a unique serial number it could even be removed from the plane which we were told was hijacked... programmed and placed into the one which was used to crash into the buildings on 9/11... or perhaps connected so SOME flight transducers and not others to use the actual data of the crashing plane...

Some might say this is overly complex. It doesn't seem so if one has a year to create these fakes.

There appears to be a lot of "illusion" associated with 9/11. We see something... but it happens rather quickly... we are told what we saw which seems to make sense. But we are denied the careful examination after the fact to actually determine what we saw... or heard.

Those phone calls made from the aircraft have this similar aspect. On the face they seemed compelling. But on further thought we learn that it was impossible that these calls took place.

The same goes for the Pentagon and Shanksville plane crashes. What were told and saw does not seem to make sense.... the evidence to support the official account stretches credulity.

The more we look closely at 9/11 the more it looks like a magic show - an illusion. Not the entire event for sure... stuff definably happened. But we don't know EXACTLY what it was or how it happened.

And the government has denied the people the ability to look at the evidence. Trust us they say and if you don't... you're a nut case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyrena1987
post Mar 17 2010, 09:16 PM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 1-August 07
Member No.: 1,566



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 15 2010, 09:37 AM) *
Correct me if I am wrong please.

All the data received by the ATC control system aside from radar returns is broadcast via radio.

Radar returns can likewise be broadcast such as RACONS which in marine navigation send a blip out supposedly when they received in a radar signal, so radar also is a radio signal.

Further, at some point in a radar receiver the radio signals are converted into line voltage which appears as data on dispay screens and is recorded on drives or tapes or some medium.

If the above is basically true (I am not a EE)... then is it not possible to insert data into the system at various points?

Would it not be possible to simulate an actual plane by simply transmitting data from a "radio transceiver" which was pre programmed from a flight simulator?

And or couldn't this data be inserted via some back door into the ATC system. I can't imagine there are not "ports" to insert data for "alignment" and turning of the equipment.

Therefore if any of the above (or all) is basically factual, then it would be possible to create any "environment" of ATC "screens".

Further, even conversations with the cockpit could be likewise staged and there would be no way of know where the transmissions were coming from. The ATC might think he (or she) was speaking with a cockpit and they were conversing with a radio shack down the street in some undisclosed location.

Further, any black box which may be recovered may likewise be a substitute place in whatever aircraft crashed... with data created in a simulator. If each Box has a unique serial number it could even be removed from the plane which we were told was hijacked... programmed and placed into the one which was used to crash into the buildings on 9/11... or perhaps connected so SOME flight transducers and not others to use the actual data of the crashing plane...

Some might say this is overly complex. It doesn't seem so if one has a year to create these fakes.

There appears to be a lot of "illusion" associated with 9/11. We see something... but it happens rather quickly... we are told what we saw which seems to make sense. But we are denied the careful examination after the fact to actually determine what we saw... or heard.

Those phone calls made from the aircraft have this similar aspect. On the face they seemed compelling. But on further thought we learn that it was impossible that these calls took place.

The same goes for the Pentagon and Shanksville plane crashes. What were told and saw does not seem to make sense.... the evidence to support the official account stretches credulity.

The more we look closely at 9/11 the more it looks like a magic show - an illusion. Not the entire event for sure... stuff definably happened. But we don't know EXACTLY what it was or how it happened.

And the government has denied the people the ability to look at the evidence. Trust us they say and if you don't... you're a nut case.


On this:

"If the above is basically true (I am not a EE)... then is it not possible to insert data into the system at various points?

I'm not an EE either, but I 'used' to calculate the flight plans for one of the airlines involved. Specifically, overwater flight plans that do not operate in a radar environment. So you're right about the insertion of data. The contacts that an over-water flight makes with the various centers as they cross say, the Atlantic, are built into the flight plan that is uploaded to the Flight Deck Computer, prior to departure. That upload of course takes place from a central location, regardless of the physical location of the aircraft. In effect, the airplane itself is programmed to send intermittent information to the Centers that track over water flights. These SAME aircraft generally have a domestic portion to them as well, (ie AA flight 11 was at the time an Intercontinental/Domestic flight that continued on to Europe or the reverse) and I'm only adding that for the persons who may believe this to be irrelevant since these flights were not operating in a NON-radar environment at the time of the incidents.

Having said that, I suspect that all of the aircraft involved were probably equipped for over-water flights, and so this is of course a possibility, IF we believe that those were the aircraft that actually hit the WTC as well as the Pentagon and Shanksville. I personally cannot believe that, just because we know that the Northeast Corridor didn't all of a sudden turn into the Bermuda Triangle on Sept, 11, 2001, and manage to DISAPPEAR 4 commercial transport airliners. It just didn't happen. 767's do not simply VANISH without leaving a trace of debris, even if it's at the bottom of the Ocean.

Yet we are expected to believe that they DID. I have never seen any signs of an aircraft, (not even a wing light), at any of the sites. At the Pentagon, all we see is a hole. There are NO signs of any emergency response such as would be seen IMMEDIATELY after any incident, as we saw with AA flt 191 in Chicago back in 1978, or DL flt 191 (no error - same flight number, different carrier) back in the early 80's at DFW. Airplanes just don't do that, not even if they break up due to structural damage as the Egypt Air flight did. Even THEN, investigators could immediately find a debris pool.

The only people I saw in the images from the Pentagon attack were the ones being carried out by the likes of Rumsfeld and others, (have you ever seen that photo of him carrying someone on a stretcher?) and those were ONLY of the people actually in the Pentagon at the time of the attack. No passengers, no baggage, no anything from the aircraft itself. How can that be? Same thing at Shanksville...a little tiny depression in the ground nothing else.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RLW
post Mar 17 2010, 10:53 PM
Post #11





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 17-June 07
From: Texas
Member No.: 1,171



OK, I think I get it now. The dynamic pressure is the same as the aircraft going supersonic at higher altitudes, even though it is subsonic.

Could a militrized version of the 767 go that fast on the deck (with say bigger engines and beefed up structure)?

This post has been edited by RLW: Mar 17 2010, 10:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2010, 04:48 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (RLW @ Mar 17 2010, 11:53 PM) *
Could a militrized version of the 767 go that fast on the deck (with say bigger engines and beefed up structure)?



Exactly...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RLW
post Mar 18 2010, 07:18 PM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 17-June 07
From: Texas
Member No.: 1,171



Looks like Japan may have paid for developing just such a critter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767

[edit] From the above website it looks like these had the standard 767 General Electric CF6 engines. I wonder if those engine parts found at the WTC ever been (for sure) identified?

BTW, a quick Google search seems to indicate that the jury may still be out on that question.

This post has been edited by RLW: Mar 18 2010, 08:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 21 2010, 07:36 AM
Post #14





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



QUOTE
There appears to be a lot of "illusion" associated with 9/11. We see something... but it happens rather quickly... we are told what we saw which seems to make sense. But we are denied the careful examination after the fact to actually determine what we saw... or heard.

Those phone calls made from the aircraft have this similar aspect. On the face they seemed compelling. But on further thought we learn that it was impossible that these calls took place.

The same goes for the Pentagon and Shanksville plane crashes. What were told and saw does not seem to make sense.... the evidence to support the official account stretches credulity.

The more we look closely at 9/11 the more it looks like a magic show - an illusion. Not the entire event for sure... stuff definably happened. But we don't know EXACTLY what it was or how it happened.


You are absolutely right. This is a common pattern throughout the official story. There are many things that are loosely or vaguely or inadequately explained and then papered over by giving the public a simple, easily repeated slogan or theme to fill the gaps. Example - "Hot Jet Fuel Fires".

But such things are easily attacked and discredited. Just find one thing that can be easily proven to be false or incorrect and the rest of the phony edifice must fall.

Rob recognizes all of this. The video is great because it focuses on one specific aspect of aerodynamics to take one aspect of the OCT - that they planes were normal commercial airliners - and show such planes would fall apart from the stresses before they hit the buildings. Thus they must be abnormal commercial airliners that were beefed up structurally and/or souped up performance wise and/or fitted with a "remotely guided pilot assistance system". Having such a sharp focus keeps things simple.

Rob is concerned about the explanation being to technical compared to the government's simple slogans. He's right to be concerned. However, I think his presentation is simple and easy for anyone to understood once they grasp three things (1) the scientific fact that air is densest at sea level and gets significantly less dense at the altitudes where planes spend most of their flying time; (2) planes are designed and constructed as lightly as possible to maximize their flight efficiency while still being safe and (3) denser air and higher speed significantly increases the structural stress on a plane. Most people already know these three things separately but never have any reason to tie them all together into one train of thought, and with 911 providing a reason, all they need to connect them now is Rob's good guidance in the video.

So Rob is fighting the government's false simplicity with the simplest possible explanation, with the added advantage that what he says is both sensible and true. Not only that, everyone likes to think they are smart, so Rob's explanation should be appealing to people. It's not too complicated and at the same time sophisticated enough to make people feel smart because they understand it. The downside might be that some people will think that they were real dumb asses for not having already seen it and instead accepting the OCT explanation.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Mar 21 2010, 08:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
datars
post Mar 21 2010, 07:50 PM
Post #15


New Terrorist in Town


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 14-August 06
From: S.F. Bay Area
Member No.: 6



Nice Job Rob on the video.

It's also nice to see what you look.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acav8rret
post Mar 22 2010, 04:47 PM
Post #16





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 18-January 09
Member No.: 4,073



QUOTE (datars @ Mar 21 2010, 09:50 PM) *
Nice Job Rob on the video.

It's also nice to see what you look.


The NTSB report indicated that United 175 attained 510 kts GROUNDSPEED, not Airspeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 22 2010, 05:56 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (acav8rret @ Mar 22 2010, 05:47 PM) *
The NTSB report indicated that United 175 attained 510 kts GROUNDSPEED, not Airspeed.



Please watch the video, it is addressed thoroughly. Those who make the excuse for the extremely excessive groundspeed, must also posit the theory there was a 85-90 knot wind pushing United 175 from the south.

Hint: The winds were light from the Northwest. Based on heading, groundspeed was virtually the same as its True Airspeed. If anything, True Airspeed was more than the 510 knot groundspeed making the govt story that much more implausible for a stock 767 to have completed such an approach intact.

Gotta love these armatures coming in here crying "Groundspeed!". Little do they know they need Hurricane force winds to hold onto their theory. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 22 2010, 10:44 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am curious about the air speeds or ground speed of the planes which hit the Twins. Where are these speeds derived from? Personally I don't trust any data on a ATC screen.

Therefore to determine to speed you would have to do some sort of analysis of the video footage.

Maybe they were only going a few hundred knots.

Tell us about how we know the speeds of the planes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 22 2010, 11:58 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 22 2010, 11:44 PM) *
Tell us about how we know the speeds of the planes.


We tell you all about it in the above film. Perhaps click play. smile.gif

But if you need an official document, click here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Dat...AA11,_UA175.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 23 2010, 06:58 AM
Post #20





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Rob,

I've seen the excellent film. And I understand the discussion about the limits of those air frames to move through the atmosphere at various elevations at various speeds. Likewise one can do the same calculations for hulls though water, flat water, waves and so forth.

However, my questions were:

Who supplied the air speeds/ground speeds of those planes?

Were the air speeds/ground speeds of those planes taken from RADES or ATC supplied information?

Has anyone calculated the air speeds /ground speed from the videos of the planes hitting the towers?

In general I find that so much of the information about 9/11 was supplied (without question or independent data) byu official sources. It is essentially a fiction, a myth... a 9/11 narrative and very little is fact based.

When you watch a "docu-drama" on TV you believe it to be a real depiction... even any movie... We give "the benefit of doubt" to the producers and story tellers.

However, in a court of law, or a laboratory, this sort of depiction has no validity whatsoever.

9/11 appears very much to be a "live docu drama"... with some actual events which people experienced but mixed in was all the production work... and connecting the dots into a convenient narrative for the American people.

We saw some planes hit the towers. They can't be ID'd from video. There are no identifying parts recovered. We are told they were various flights and individuals boarded those flights and were never seen again.

Yet we have ID'd their DNA, but not a single serial number of a part?

We have things like passports and bandanas recovered from the alleged hijackers?

We have no black boxes? (even though it is easy to plant them on site)

We are told that those airframes can't travel at the reported speeds... so what hit the towers? Slower planes or different planes than we were told?

There are too many odd coincidences and facts which don't add up to a coherent story... too many lies and fabrications. Yet people believe that we are being attacked and the enemy of Al Qaeda... so it all makes sense to them. Who else could do such a thing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th April 2017 - 03:36 PM